Group-Based Dialogic Introspection *

Harald Witt

1 What is introspection?
2 Historical background
3 What is not introspection?
4 Critique of the method of introspection
5 The method of Group-Based Dialogic Introspection
5.1 Phase 1: Generation of data
5.2 Phase 2: Recording of data
5.3 Phase 3: Presentation of data
5.4 Phase 4: Completion of data
5.5 Phase 5: Data analysis
5.6 General conditions
5.7 Task and function of the individual
5.8 Task and function of the group
6 Arguments against objections to introspection as a research method
7 Application examples using the method of group based dialogic introspection
8 Possible application fields of the method of group based dialogic introspection
9 Actual application of the method of introspection
10 Final remarks
11 Additional reading
12 References

Home

Summary

This paper will

• show the historical roots of the classical method of introspection,
• define introspection,
• explore the differences to other methods concerning inner processes and
• evaluate the arguments which led to the end of the use of this method which was the main method during the establishment of scientific psychology. .
• Thereafter follows the description of an attempt to reactivate, or rather to develop a new concept of the method of introspection by the Hamburger Forschungswerkstatt [Hamburg research workshop]. This led to the procedure now called group based dialogic introspection.
• A prototypic introspection experiment with its different phases of execution and its specifics of data collection will be described as an example. The principle of data analysis is demonstrated elsewhere (Kleining, 2010a, 2010b) but the result of the analysis will be shown for this example.
• After that the objections to the method of introspection will be picked up again, now enabling a more precise and more critical discussion as well as an overview of the pros and cons of the new procedure.
• References to approved and non-approved applications will be given to show the possibilities of the new procedure and to encourage the reader further to investigate and explore the method.
• Finally some alternative concepts and applications of introspection methods will be mentioned.

1 What is introspection?

Introspection is the self-observation of inner processes. Its focus may aim at physical, cognitive, volitional or emotional actions in situations experienced consciously. While responding in situations a parallel process takes place: the own experiences/the own inner processes are recorded mentally. Introspection takes place deliberately or incidentally, ranging from short spells to long periods of time.

The genuine process of introspection has to be distinguished from the process of retrospection. The latter is applied after an introspection task to access the data of that introspection. In order to do this one has to recall the data from memory and make it overt by different means (speaking, writing, painting etc.). Only overt data is accessible by other persons and can then become the material for a scientific analysis.

Box 1 gives an example of a very short and accidental introspection event. It shows very clearly the autonomous and parallel process of generating introspection data. The retrospection and reporting was done immediately after the (introspection-) event: first keywords were noted down to extract the essential and elusive observations. Then complete sentences were formed from those keywords before adding the general set-up.

2 Historical background

Introspection was used as a standard research method at the turn of the last century (about 1900) by many still renown researchers, ranging from Brentano (1874) and Wundt (1888, 1918) to Titchener (1907) and to the Würzburg Thought Psychology (Bühler, 1907). In those days, many variations of the method had already been in use, originating in different research topics or in the aim to compensate some weak points of the method.

Boxes 2 and 3 describe two experimental settings which were used at that time to investigate inner processes: One is based on the experiments by Wundt (Leipzig, about 1907) investigating sensations, the other on thought experiments by Bühler (Würzburg about 1907).

Wundt and Bühler fiercely criticised each others experiments. Wundt contrasted experimental introspection with pure introspection (incidentally, spontaneously and not provoked). To solve a problem and at the same time to observe the inner processes he considered not to be possible, to be error-prone and to be not controllable (Wundt, 1918).

Bühler, on the other hand, did not see the possibility to investigate complex inner processes under Wundt’s conditions of controlled laboratory experiments. He considered Wundt’s elementary psychology to be a deadlock (Bühler, 1908).

A third variation were the introspection experiments by Brentano. He distinguished two kinds of introspection: the inner perception and the inner observation. The inner perception takes place, in a way, incidentally, it aims at mental processes in action- and thought-sequences (which can be the aim of reflection and analysis later on). In contrast to that the inner observation requires the conscious direction and concentration of attention to the inner processes in question. Central to inner observation is the detailed recording of inner processes. This is much more than simply taking notice of something by chance. It requires the splitting of the consciousness into an observing/acting part and into an experiencing part.

3 What is not introspection?

The distinction of introspection from other methods aiming at inner processes is not a simple task. Some alternative methods are listed below:

• Free associations: Used in psychoanalytic settings. They are, in fact, the result of inner processes, but they do not actually say anything about the processes itself. Only during the course of analysis can the therapist use them to access inner processes.
• Automatic writing (écriture automatique): Used by French surrealists to produce texts free of social pressure and free of one’s own critical censoring (Bürger, 1996, p. 145 ff). The instruction requires putting oneself into the „most passive and most receptive mood” and writing fast and without a fixed subject. If disturbances occur, i.e. if the writing starts being mentally controlled, one has to stop writing and start again. This is done by choosing a letter at random and using that letter to start the next word (Steinwachs, 1971, p. 38). This method was considered a literary technique and a means to free the human being. The aim of this procedure is to make the writing process automatic. Introspection – if it occurs – is interpreted as a disturbing factor in the process of automatic writing.
• Memorisation: Retrieving memory content that goes back a shorter or longer time. If this content concerns recallable knowledge (learned facts) and not the processes of memorising itself it is probably not introspection. If it does concern inner processes, then it may be introspection via retrospection as mentioned earlier.
• Reflection: Colloquially speaking, this means to think about a situation in the past (or a planned or expected situation), examining and tackling it from all angles with the aim to understand it better as well as to learn from or anticipate it. Probably reflection is as much introspection as the execution of a multiplication. Only the focussing of perception or observation on the inner processes taking place at that time turns it into introspection.
• Thinking aloud (lautes Denken): Used in cognitive psychology and introduced by Duncker in 1935. It reflects thought processes and allows the analysis of these processes. This, however is problematic as it can disturb the thought processes, thus supporting the argument of reactivity. „The instruction ‘think aloud’ is not the same as the usual instruction in introspective thought experiments. While the self observing person makes himself into the object of a thinking person – at least with the intention – he is different from the thinking subject. Yet, the person thinking aloud focusses directly on the problem, allowing it, so to speak, to have the word” (Duncker, 1966, p. 2). According to Duncker, thinking aloud as an access to mental processes does not require introspection (with its orientation on experiencing and conscious processes) at all. Thinking aloud is one of the very few methods in the field of introspection, which has been accepted as a research method in the empirical social sciences so far.
• Contemplation, meditation, day dreams, pondering, brooding, brainstorming are further methods concerning inner processes, which operate as a rule without introspective elements.

4 Critique of the method of introspection

There were various kinds of critique of the method of introspection. While critique from their own ranks led to improvements and variations of the method, the strong critique of behaviourism resulted in the rigorous elimination from the accepted research methods (v. Burkart, 1999, 2010a, Städtler, 1998, Traxel, 1964).

In the following paragraphs only critique relating to introspection will be discussed, not that which relates also to other research methods (e.g. contradicting results, unreliable or non-valid results, limited applicability etc.).

These specific objections are a) the splitting argument, b) the reactivity and c) the lack of verifiability.

• The splitting argument:

The splitting argument emphasises the above mentioned problem of splitting the attention: one part of the attention has to be paid to the experience, another to the observation. This would not be possible because it implies a splitting of consciousness in an experiencing part and an observing part.

• Reactivity:

This argument means that the subject is – at the same time – object of the observation and observer, i.e. the activity of observation will modify the object of observation.

• Lack of verifiability:

This is the behavioural argument. Behaviourism only accepts data that is accessible from the outside and that is measurable. Because introspection data is accessible only by the subject itself, it is not accepted by the behavioural position. Instead behaviourism assumes that inner processes do have external and observable attributes as well and that these attributes make the inner processes accessible. In other words, behaviourism claims that introspection data not only is unacceptable but moreover that it is unnecessary. „Behavior which is of such small magnitude that it is not ordinarily observed may be amplified. Covert verbal behavior may be detected in slight movements of the speech apparatus [...]. The problem of privacy may therefore be solved by technical advances” (Skinner, 1965, cited in Lyons, 1986, p. 43).

Karl Marbe and Narziss Ach tried at an early stage to counteract the objections: Marbe (1901) separated observer and researcher and collected the data immediately after the experience, Ach (1905) added some technical equipment to his laboratory. Still the method of introspection was banished.

All three objections are undoubtedly justified. The question is, are they so grave that the whole method has to be abandoned? Or are there ways and means to deal with these objections, to minimise or control them?

5 The method of Group-Based Dialogic Introspection

A research workshop at the University of Hamburg, an interdisciplinary group of psychologists, sociologists and teachers, has developed a method for group-based dialogic introspection. It is a procedure for the production of subjective data of experiences of individuals. The procedure is embedded in the methodology of qualitative heuristic (Kleining, 1982) and is characterised by a systematic approach to experimental design, data gain and data analysis.

It goes back to the introspection method, how it was comprehensively used in the beginnings of scientific psychology. However it expands on this procedure by the components of the group and the dialogue. It is assumed that with these components methodical objections, which were raised against the early forms of introspection, are taken up and considered.

Thus, a new procedure is developed, which uses the large advantages of introspective data – like access to subjective experiencing, richness and complexity of data and ease of collection – and turns or refutes the objections – like non-observability, subjectivity and reactivity. The procedure is carried out within the group and thereby makes the support of individual intro- and retrospection possible. It therefore, amongst other things, improves the verifiability of data.

In the following the procedure is described on the basis of an example (alarm clock experiment, Witt and Kleining (2010)).

It concerns an (prototypical) experiment, in which several persons participate at the same time. However, each person experiences for himself an event (the experimental event). After the presentation of the experimental event the group goes into action, in order to support the individual data gain, thus improving the quality of the data (accuracy, extent, depth and differentiation). This does not concern group experiments in the traditional sense, where the group acts as a group, but an experimental arrangement in which the group is used as a research instrument.

In the experiment, while the group is engaged in a task, a hidden alarm clock unexpectedly goes off loudly.

Directly following this incident – after a short time of freight, irritation and new orientation – the group members are requested to intro- /retrospect the time of the event. The instruction read about as follows: „Please note down everything that went through your mind and, as well as everything you thought and felt at the time the alarm went off and for the period directly after that incident.”.

Taking notes takes approximately 5-10 minutes. Then the recordings are reported in turn. The others listen and abstain from all comments.

A second round follows. In this round each group member can add to his presentations, elaborating on those aspects he was reminded of while listening to the contributions of the others. Only after that second round can discussion statements, comments and other observations be contributed.

All verbal reports are recorded on audio media. They are the material for the following analysis, which does not take place in the group, but is carried out by a single group member (e.g. the experimenter) at a later time.

The whole procedure, which was carried out in similar form in a number of different experiments, can be divided into a set of phases.

5.1 Phase 1: Generation of data

The first phase is the generation of data. During the experiment data originates in the mind. They are – more or less clearly – part of our conscious experiencing at the moment, e.g., of the fright, and are at the same time the object of introspection, i.e. I am experiencing something, thinking about and feeling it, at the same time registering all this by introspection.

One assumes that in experiencing a situation, a second process always takes place simultaneously. This second process makes it possible for us to observe our own experiencing, so that we can call up again these observation data while bringing to mind the situation at a later point in time. This parallel observation can take place both casually and deliberately, depending on the respective test conditions, which can be alternated in various ways.

Fig. 1: Individual and separate introspection data of persons A and B (schematically).

5.2 Phase 2: Recording of data

A second phase concerns the recording of the experience that was registered through introspection, to verbalise it and to put it into writing. This has to be done after the request of the experimenter. As mentioned above, it now concerns retrospection, because the recording concerns those elements, which after the event are still memorable, which are regarded as worthy to be noted down and which can be translated into language.

However these two aspects (intro and retrospection) can not be fully distinguished. This is because during retrospection, parts of the experiencing are revitalised again, thus allowing for further introspection to take place during the phase of retrospection. This interdependence is also the prerequisite for the phenomenon of resonance described later on.

The notes are usually put to paper very fast (5-10 minutes), usually with a clear feeling of „that’s it”, „there was nothing else going through my mind „, „finished, the rest in not important, banal or elusive”.

Fig. 2: Individual and separate introspection data of persons A and B (schematically) and the parts which are recorded.

5.3 Phase 3: Presentation of data

In the third phase the group is used. Individual recordings are presented to the group. They can be presented either by reading out the written recordings or by reporting orally – based on the written notes. The verbal reports differ to some extent from the own recordings: either they are elaborated on, supplemented and made more precise or they are reduced, if the narrative flow takes another direction. During the speaking and listening, further memories – by the reporting person and by the listening persons – are mobilised.

With astonishing confidence, the individual group members are able to recognise statements of another person as part of their own experiencing or are able to reject them as not being part of their own experiencing. Again each group member is requested to take notes, forming the material for the so-called second round. This phase is the crucial part in using the group, covering the following points:

• Extension

The individual memories can be extended. In the statement of another person I recognise my own experience content, which I did not mention because to me it seemed, for example, too banal or it was very elusive and I did not manage to recall it while recording the experience. Another reason may be that I felt unable to communicate my experience because it’s socially not acceptable or not compatible with my self-image.

• Precision and differentiation

The individual memories can be specified and differentiated by recognising components from the reports of other participants, which were similar to mine but nevertheless different. This difference, however, becomes only clear by the exact presentation of other participants.

• Discrimination

Furthermore, my own memories can also be distinguished from those of other members by experiencing and classifying them as clearly different from my own. This discrepancy contributes much to the rounding off of my own recollection and also clearly marks the boundaries of my own experiencing data.

By using the group, the experiments of the Hamburger Forschungswerkstatt differ significantly from the classical introspection experiments, which were all conducted as single person experiments (Mayer, 2010a). Since the researchers at that time all knew each other well, they will have discussed the experiments, but probably outside of the experimental setting and not systematically.

Using a group in this setting is unusual, as in groups there is always the worry of influencing each other. In the described procedure, however the group has exactly the opposite effect: the individual introspection is enriched, specified and differentiated by contributions from the group, without the danger of mixing experiences with that of others. Or rather, without the danger of incorporating something into my memory that I did not actually experience.

This confidence in recognising one’s own memories or in rejecting the ones of others is a common experience within various experiments of this kind. It clearly contradicts the conformity experiments ŕ la Asch (1956) and others. However, this can easily be explained by looking at the type of experimental setting.

It can even be assumed that the extent of the redefinition of the data from the original introspection – as would be expected while recording – is reduced by the presentation in the group.

The basis of the completion in the group seems to be a phenomenon of resonance, a feeling of being emotionally involved or of going along with the report of another group member’s introspection. This requires similar experiences of the group members, so that they can empathise with the reported situation and reported experiencing. On this basis similar feelings can be re-activated and communicated. Each group member for himself can check for conformity or difference to his own experiencing.

Fig. 3: Individual and separate introspection data of persons A and B (schematically), the parts which are recorded and their intersections (after phase 3: the presentation).

5.4 Phase 4: Completion of data

A fourth phase is the second round which serves to differentiate, specify and expand the memorised details. This is done by completing one’s own elaboration on details which were evoked by resonance processes in the first round.

In this second round a certain pressure of justification may take place, if a certain experiencing proves to be a minority position. Here the good will and the openness of the group members are needed in order to avoid conformity pressure. Apart from that the procedure corresponds to the one of the first round: the group members in turn complete their first report on the basis of their notes from the first round.

5.5 Phase 5: Data analysis

A fifth phase concerns the analysis of the data. It can take place in several stages:

• Stage 1:

During the presentation of the individual recordings – and even more obviously, during commentating and discussion – patterns become visible. These can be named and focusssed on in the group: e.g. the alarm clock experiment showed that the seating position relative to the alarm clock played a role and thereby different freight types could be explained.

Those sitting with the back to the hidden alarm clock needed a longer time to reorientate themselves. They therefore had a more intensive experiencing, more uncertainty and a more violent frightening, than those who could discover the alarm clock by simply lifting their head, identifying the situation very fast as harmless and non-threatening.

These patterns move as data into the next stage, the analysis of similarities. This analysis requires a lot of time and does not work well within a group – it is better done outside the group.

• Stage 2:

Analysis of similarities: After the group meeting, each group member for himself can screen and interpret the data and elaborate on connections as well as similarities: Furthermore, he can identify topics which were named during the group meeting in connection with the ringing of the alarm clock. Alternatively, one person alone can analyse the data for everyone. In each case the procedure follows the rules of the heuristic social research, which focusses on the analysis of similarities.

In the alarm clock experiment, general patterns of reactions to disturbances could be found. Attempts of a fast re-orientation as well as emotional participation, uncertainty, annoyance and relief and/or release after successful re-orientation were found. Also, physical side effects and their changes as well as involuntary though not remembered verbal expressions and the perception of the others could be reconstructed fairly accurately (Witt & Kleining, 2010).

5.6 General conditions

The smooth running of the procedures involved in data gain, data adjustment as well as data analysis are likely to depend on some basic conditions. However, these have not yet been varied systematically.

• It is our impression that it is important that the group is sympathetic to and interested in the subject examined and the methods applied.
• A certain harmlessness of the object (as with the alarm clock experiment) does not seem to be a requirement, because even with more personal topics the necessary openness in the group (during the presentation of inner experience and the associated thoughts) could be achieved.
• An interest in one's own inner processes is probably necessary, otherwise the banality barrier cannot be overcome – it is easily believed that what one notes down is banal, forming a strange contrast to the involved and deep discussion that takes place once the group has communicated their introspection notes.
• A special training does not seem to be necessary for this procedure, although it usually works better and group members are more attuned to each other the second time. However, the group members have to be able and willing to observe and communicate their own inner processes.
• Also group coherence seems to be unproblematic. At least it didn't have a negative effect, when groups were changed for different tests. On the contrary, variation of group members seemed to have a stimulating effect.
• The group members must not be tempted to report details which do not concern their own inner experiencing. This might happen if group members have had experiences with i.e. focus groups. The similarities of the set-up might mislead them.

5.7 Task and function of the individual

The task of the individual group members is different in the phases described. However, the basis of the whole procedure is that in phase 1 - parallel to the event - introspection actually takes place and that this introspection is differentiated and can be remembered and communicated. The different interaction processes within this procedure constitute the dialogic approach. The considerable improvement of data gain, linked to this dialogic approach, can partly negate the critique of subjectivity and non-verifiability, but of course can not completely resolve the issue.

5.8 Task and function of the group

It is the task of the group to allow an exchange, to extend the range of issues that arise and to stimulate and encourage each other. It is especially very elusive introspection, not put down by most participants, that is lifted above the threshold of the remembered once it has been brought up. It enriches the data spectrum considerably and is - with the help of the group - relatively easy to access despite its elusive nature. The group also helps to avoid diverting from the issue and being arbitrary. Through the contributions of others, group members are repeatedly reminded of the fact that here their own inner experiencing is requested, not associations on the subject or intellectual reflections based on wide background knowledge.

Furthermore, this is not about inducing some kind of group experience or collective introspection. Introspection refers to the individual and, in this case, to the brief moment of self-perception in the experimental fright incident.

6 Arguments against objections to introspection as a research method

• Splitting of attention

The accessibility of very elusive introspection data with the help of the group we consider an argument against the objection of the splitting of attention: A relevant part of the attention does not have to be taken from the normal activities and be directed upon the introspection. Instead the introspection process takes place automatically, usually without the subject/person being fully aware of this as large parts of it are very elusive. If they are not retrieved by supporting methods, they simply disappear again.

At least this seems to apply to the very short sequences described here. Also with longer introspection situations, e.g. the viewing of a short film or the news on television, the attention can be relieved of the double task by noting down keywords. These can later serve as an anchor to support retrospection and can then be completed easily by additional notes.

• Reactivity

At first reactivity seems to be a serious problem with introspection experiments. However, taking a closer look it appears that – e.g. with a media reception – the request to view a short film attentively leads to a media reception that is different to the everyday viewing of the same film.

In the example discussed, therefore, reactivity is predominantly a problem related to the media reception, not the introspection. However, writing down keywords during the reception interrupts the observation process and impairs both: observation and introspection.

• Subjectivity

The considerable improvement of data gain – made possible by the multi-layered and group-supported procedure described above – can partly defuse the critique of subjectivity and lack of verifiability, but of course it can not negate it completely.

The resonance phenomenon, which is possible in the group, improves the inter-subjectivity of the data. However verification of the comparability of results with the same introspection situations and different groups are still pending.

7 Application examples using the method of group based dialogic introspection

The Hamburger Forschungswerkstatt has carried out a number of experiments to test the procedure:

• The experiencing of a railway station (Kleining, 2010b) aimed at the atmosphere of a big public building. It demonstrates - among other things - the possibility to use data from situations not experienced in the group and collected at different places, but exchanged and completed in the group.
• A similar experimental design is found on the subject of anger and other emotions (Burkart, 2010d). In chance situations, associated with strong emotions, notes were taken immediately afterwards. These notes were then exchanged in a group session.
• The subject media reception was worked on with examples of short films (Burkart, 2010c) and two versions (one actual, one historical) of the news on TV (Schramm, 2010). Short films were viewed together in the group, while the TV news were watched individually at home.
• The experiencing of the PC and of a car.
• The effect of terms was examined through different examples: 'What is a blackboard', 'bridge and gate', 'trust', 'clouds', 'considering' and 'poverty'. The naming of the term constituted the introspective situation. The inner processes / the inner experiencing provoked by this situation had to be noted down and reported.

8 Possible application fields of the method of group based dialogic introspection

The Hamburger Forschungswerkstatt has also considered areas, as yet unexplored, the method could be used in.

• Social Work and Social Pedagogy (Mayer, 2010b). Dialogic introspection could be used in supervision to analyse countertransference processes as they take place during the presentation of individual cases.
• Psychotherapy (Burkart, 2010b). Dialogic introspection could be used in group therapies to deepen the exploration of experiencing and to increase the introspection ability.
• Creative Therapy / Art Therapy (Tapfer, 2010). With dialogic introspection pictures painted by individuals could be interpreted / worked on in a group-supported way.
• Counselling of Non profit organisations (Frederici, 2010). The course of organisational dynamics could be examined with the help of imagined scenarios

All authors come to the conclusion that - with more or lesser restrictions - group based dialogic introspection could be used in the areas discussed. Other fields not mentioned here would still need to be discussed, e.g. industrial psychology, software ergonomics, criminal justice etc.

9 Actual application of the method of introspection

Presumably the Hamburger Forschungswerkstatt is the first (Kleining, Schulze, Krotz, Witt and Burkart, 1999), but not the only group which has recently tried to use the method of introspection again. In an article by Deterding (2008) four actual procedures using the introspection method are described:

• Thinking aloud / protocol analysis

In addition to thinking aloud in its classical form (see section 3 above) mindtaping is mentioned here. On the basis of video recordings of the behaviour corresponding consciousness content is verbalised. Apart from the fact that this procedure is not related to thinking aloud, it is a procedure that works well. It can be used where there are observable (and recordable) actions, as for example operating computers or machine tools (see Schulze, 2001).

• Descriptive experience sampling

Here it is attempted to collect random moments in the everyday life of test persons: an apparatus - carried on the body - requests in irregular intervals (through a beep) to note down consciousness content from immediately before the beep tone. After six episodes the recordings are described in detail through an expositional interview (similar: Pulver, 1999).

• Systematic self observation

This procedure aims to capture of tacit experiences and actions (see Schulze, 2001). With the appearance of a certain phenomenon the subject is asked to continue his action as per usual, but to observe attentively and to take down notes immediately afterwards. This procedure corresponds to the experiment mentioned above anger and other emotions. The difference is that at the Hamburger Forschungswerkstatt it deals with emotions, while here it concerns actions.

• Group-based dialogic introspection (the procedure introduced here)

The procedures 1 to 3 only work as single person procedures, although they could easily be used with group support.

10 Final remarks

To contradict Boring (1953): The introspection method has by no means disappeared from the scene. At many places the method is applied again. The method of group based dialogic introspection described here however differs from the classical forms and from other forms published in the literature in several ways:

• It is integrated within the heuristic methodology (concerns the experimental design, the execution, the sampling and the analysis) and is used accordingly in systematic and controlled ways.
• It uses various dialogic and interactive moments in the different phases of application: this refers to the dialogue with the object as well as to the dialogic and interactive actions in the group or the repeated dealings with one's own introspection.
• Above all, it differs from all other procedures in the use of the group. The group here serves as a supporting tool which is able to improve the introspection of the individuals. The advantages of data collection with group support lie in two essential points:

- the quality of the individual data (accuracy, amount, depth and differentiation) is improved and

- the group members themselves relate their individual data to the data of the others. This implies the possibility to identify boundaries, overlappings, relations or blank spaces.

Ease of application, comprehensive results and the range of topics suggest renewed taking up of the method of introspection. Despite remaining doubts it should be propagated and used within the scope of psychological, sociological or educational approaches.

With the help of the rules for application every interested reader should be able to use group based dialogic introspection in his own research. Furthermore, the descriptions of experimental designs of the Hamburger Forschungswerkstatt give an insight into the range of possible variations. These variations allow the adaptation of the procedure to specific topics and to the changes of the problem view in the course of the experiments. For the purpose of qualitative heuristics these variations and adaptations are necessary and possible.

11 Additional reading

Boring, Edwin (1953). A History of Introspection. Psychological Bulletin, 50 (3), 169-189.

Burkart, Thomas, Kleining, Gerhard & Witt, Harald (Eds.). (2010). Dialogische Introspektion. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Dialogische Introspektion (1999). downloaded 20.12.2009 from http://www.introspektion-hamburg.net/.

Kleining, Gerhard, Schulze, Hartmut, Krotz, Friedrich, Witt, Harald & Burkart, Thomas (1999). Introspektion als Forschungsmethode. [Special issue]. Journal für Psychologie, 7 (2), 3 - 62. [Contributions of the Hamburg conference on introspection and self-observation1998].

Lyons, W. (1986). The Disappearence of Introspection. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: The MIT Press.

Ziche, P. (Eds.). (1999). Introspektion. Texte zur Selbstwahrnehmung des Ichs. Berlin: Springer.

12 References

Ach, Narziss (1905). Über die Willenstätigkeit und das Denken. Eine experimentelle Untersuchung mit einem Anhange: Über das Hippsche Chronoskop. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. [Reprint in Ziche (1999): pp. 98-154].

Asch, Salomon E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against an unanonymous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70 (416)

Brentano, Franz (1973). Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt. Erster Band. Hamburg: Felix Meiner. [Original published 1874, unchanged reprint of the edition of 1924].

Bühler, Karl (1907). Tatsachen und Probleme zu einer Psychologie der Denkvorgänge. I. Über Gedanken. Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie, 9, 297-365. [Reprint in Ziche, Paul (1999), pp. 157-209].

Bühler, Karl (1908). Antwort auf die von W. Wundt erhobenen Einwände gegen die Methode der Selbstbeobachtung an experimentell erzeugten Erlebnissen. Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie, IX, 93-123.

Bürger, Peter (1996). Der französische Surrealismus. Studien zur avantgardistischen Literatur. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.

Burkart, Thomas (1999). Methodische Einwände und Kritik an Introspektionsverfahren. Journal für Psychologie, 7 (2), 14-16. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-40106 [Access: 5.1.2010].

Burkart, Thomas (2010). Die Kritik von Introspektionsmethoden. In Thomas Burkart, Gerhard Kleining & Harald Witt (Eds.), Dialogische Introspektion (pp. 182-186). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Burkart, Thomas (2010). Psychotherapie und Introspektion. In Thomas Burkart, Gerhard Kleining & Harald Witt (Eds.), Dialogische Introspektion (pp. 133-140). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Burkart, Thomas (2010). Rezeption eines Kurzfilms. In Thomas Burkart, Gerhard Kleining & Harald Witt (Eds.), Dialogische Introspektion (pp. 85-92). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Burkart, Thomas (2010). Ärger und andere Gefühle. In Thomas Burkart, Gerhard Kleining & Harald Witt (Eds.), Dialogische Introspektion (pp. 75-85). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Deterding, Sebastian (2008). Introspektion. Begriffe, Verfahren und Einwände in Psychologie und Kognitionswissenschaft. In Jürgen Raab, Michaela Pfadenhauer, Peter Stegmaier, Jochen Dreher & Bernt Schnettler (Eds.), Phänomenologie und Soziologie. Theoretische Positionen, aktuelle Problemfelder und empirische Umsetzungen (pp. 327-337). Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Duncker, Karl (1966). Zur Psychologie des produktiven Denkens. Berlin: Springer. [Orig. 1935].

Friederici, Markus R. (2010). Die Dialogische Introspektion als Element der Beratung von Non-Profit-Organisationen. In Thomas Burkart, Gerhard Kleining & Harald Witt (Eds.), Dialogische Introspektion (pp. 154-161). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Kleining, Gerhard (1982). Umriß zu einer Methodologie qualitativer Sozialforschung. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 34, 234-252. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-8619 [Access: 5.1.2010].

Kleining, Gerhard (2010). Die Methode der Datenanalyse. In Thomas Burkart, Gerhard Kleining & Harald Witt (Eds.), Dialogische Introspektion (pp. 52-61). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Kleining, Gerhard (2010). Erleben eines Bahnhofs. In Thomas Burkart, Gerhard Kleining & Harald Witt (Eds.), Dialogische Introspektion (pp. 64-75). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Kleining, Gerhard, Schulze, Hartmut, Krotz, Friedrich, Witt, Harald & Burkart, Thomas (1999). Introspektion als Forschungsmethode. [special issue]. Journal für Psychologie, 7 (2), 3 - 62. [Contributions of the Hamburg conference on introspection and self-observation 1998]. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-28708 [Access: 5.1.2010].

Lyons, William (1986). The disappearence of introspection. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: The MIT Press.

Marbe, K. (1901). Experimentell-psychologische Untersuchungen über das Urteil. Eine Einleitung in die Logik. Leipzig: Engelmann. [Reprint in Ziche, Paul (1999), pp. 78-97].

Mayer, Peter (2010). Die methodische Entwicklung der Introspektion. In Thomas Burkart, Gerhard Kleining & Harald Witt (Eds.), Dialogische Introspektion (pp. 167-174). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Mayer, Peter (2010). Introspektion in der Supervision der Sozialen Arbeit und Sozialpädagogik. In Thomas Burkart, Gerhard Kleining & Harald Witt (Eds.), Dialogische Introspektion (pp. 116-123). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Pulver, U. (1999). Selbstbeobachteter Alltag. Journal für Psychologie, Jahrgang 7 (2), 42-46.

Schramm, Heinz (2010). Zwei Sendungen Tagesschau - aktuell und historisch. In Thomas Burkart, Gerhard Kleining & Harald Witt (Eds.), Dialogische Introspektion (pp. 92-100). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Schulze, Hartmut (2001). Erfahrungsgeleitete Arbeit in der industriellen Produktion. Menschliche Expertise als Leitbild für Technikgestaltung. Berlin: Edition Sigma.

Scripture, Edward-W. (1907). Über den assoziativen Verlauf von Vorstellungen. Philosophische Studien, VII, 50-76.

Skinner, Burrhus F. (1965). Science and Human Behavior. London, New York: Macmillan.

Städtler, Thomas (1998). Introspektion. In Thomas Städtler (Eds.), Lexikon der Psychologie (pp. 512). Stuttgart: Kröner.

Steinwachs, Giesela (1971). ): Mythologie des Surrealismus oder Die Rückverwandlung von Kultur in Natur. Neuwied: Lucherhand.

Tapfer, Odila (2010). Gestaltungstherapie/Kunsttherapie. In Thomas Burkart, Gerhard Kleining & Harald Witt (Eds.), Dialogische Introspektion (pp. 140-145). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Titchener, Edward B. (1907). An outline of psychology. New York: Macmillan & Co. [First edition 1886].

Traxel, Werner (1964). Einführung in die Methodik der Psychologie. Bern: Hans Huber Verlag.

Witt, Harald & Kleining, Gerhard (2010). Erleben eines Schrecks. In Thomas Burkart, Gerhard Kleining & Harald Witt (Eds.), Dialogische Introspektion (pp. 107-114). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Wundt, Wilhelm (1888). Selbstbeobachtung und innere Wahrnehmung. In Wilhelm Wundt (Eds.), Philosophische Studien 4 (pp. 292-310). Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.

Wundt, Wilhelm (1907). Über Ausfrageexperimente und über die Methoden zur Psychologie des Denkens. In Wilhelm Wundt (Eds.), Psychologische Studien 3 (pp. 301-360). Leipzig: Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann.

Wundt, Wilhelm (1918). Grundriss der Psychologie. (First 1896). (13. Ed.). Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.

---

*) This text is published in a abbreviated form and in German in: Mey, Günter & Mruck, Katja (Eds.). (2010). Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.